UKC

Major new development.

To get around the current impasse, Johnson has proposed doing precisely nothing during a transition period while we search for a blue unicorn of a different shade to the one already dismissed as nonsense.

But he's being realistic, recognising that such a magical beast may not show up in time.

In which case he's proposing getting more creative in the hunt for any kind of unicorn that's recognisably blue, as long as it goes by a different name than Backstop.

I'm sure that'll be more than concrete enough for the EU to fall into line.

I like the bit about potential divergence of environmental and workers rights. 

The EU is being lined up as the fall-guy for the UKs decision to self-inflict a hard brexit.

The poor in this country are fu*ked.

FTFY

FTFY

Why use five words when one will do?

Oh I don't know. If your pension pot is mainly invested abroad and you've paid off your mortgage when the pound plummets you'll (I'll) be doing quite nicely.

Unless of course Trump manages to phuq up the US economy then we're all in the manure up to our bottom lips.

We'll get to that stage soon. As in the famous scene from The Wire:

https://www.vulture.com/2018/02/the-wire-oral-history-f*ck-scene.html

(NSFW funnily enough...)

Not like they will be when the brexit firesale starts. Still, it'll be someone else's fault, it always is. 

Jk

It's just so odd, because one of the main groups who can't be blamed in any way is the EU, who are looking on just as helplessly as the Remainers as the Brexiters literally walk away. If a club member walks out of a club, saying they no longer want any part of it, just what is the club able or meant to do? All they can do is watch, probably in dismay.

Why just the poor?  In many ways they are already fu*ked but why will a hard Brexit make it specifically worse for them than for others?

How about workers in the motor, aerospace, engineering and farming industries who will lose their livelihoods?

Your and others' attempt to turn everything into a class war is one of the main reasons why we are in this awful mess.  IE why many floating voters still can't bring themselves to vote for or support Corbyn thereby leaving Boris Johnson a free to trash the country.

I don't see why 'independently wealthy' will help, unless you have multiple millions.

If you have property its value will most likely fall, along with rents.

If you have an equity/bond investment portfolio it will probably fall in value.

If you have a UK centric business it will likely suffer.

404 page not found

I'm struggling to see your comment about class war and 'fault' as any way serious .

Are you doubting the insulating effect of wealth from the coming trouble? 

I didn't read that as an attempt to stoke class conflict or claim the poor would have a monopoly on Brexit related suffering, just a statement of the fact that in any downturn it's generally the poor (and other disadvantaged groups) that suffer hardest. 

It depends on what you mean by poor?  Many people and families in reasonably well paid jobs don't have significant disposable incomes or savings after housing costs etc.  When their employment goes with little chance of similar jobs their lives will be turned upside down 

youtube.com/watch?v=XdfwFDZGnUk&

Interesting that my OP now has 5 dislikes but none of those people have seen fit to put into words why the message of the OP - that Johnson's letter is absurdly vague and unworkable - is not a true reflection of reality.

Would any of those dislikers care to articulate their thoughts, or are the dislikes purely a reflection of not liking the absurdity of current reality made clear?

The letter is for Nancy. To show the hard border is not his fault. 

Standing by for Ireland somehow being to blame for all this

EU diplomat:

"Not so much megaphone diplomacy. Just the megaphone."

Message from HQ to the troops (PBI) at the front

Look you chaps, we know the enemy position is over there and we know we don't have any cover and that they have a good position, well set up arcs of fire, not to mention mortars sited on the high ground.

Nevertheless, we're going to push forward in the open and just have confidence because there is still LOADS of time for them to surrender or give up.   If you don't make it it will be their fault for shooting instead of surrendering to us now.  Now just get on with it and I'll give you lots of support from my bunker in London

It's difficult to imagine that a PM with only the flimsiest mandate (100,000 votes out of an electorate of 40 million?) calling the EU for being 'undemocratic' is going to win many friends or sway much opinion. 

Not sure what’s happening there. It works from Google but not when I paste it here. Does UKC block links with naughty words in them? Just search for the obvious terms. 

UKC automatically changes a critical " u " into " * ".

CB

Speaking of undemocratic, is this the latest Cummings buzzword? Anything he doesnt like is "undemocratic", such as the backstop arrangement. It might not be ideal, it might not be liked, but can anyone explain how it has become "undemocratic"?

Yes, that is perhaps the most bafflingly nonsensical of all. It also takes NO account of what the Northern Irish electorate (or, for that matter, what the Irish electorate want). Perhaps the Brexit loonies, led by Johnson/Cummings, really think there are people ... even a majority ... in the UK, or Ireland, who want to bring back the Irish border, and the inevitable 'troubles'/ terrorism that will engender. If they really do think this surely it's about time they were certified as clinically insane?

https://www.vulture.com/2018/02/the-wire-oral-history-fuck-scene.html

Ah.... thought it must be something like that. 

So how did you persuade that one to work?

Indeed. I thought the "Irish Sea" backstop quite an elegant solution. NI voted to remain in the EU, so they would at least have the customs union part of it; Everyone on the island or Ireland can continue their lives as now, the backstop respected the Belfast Accord, NI would still be part of the UK as it is, the only concession being customs checks between NI and GB. Not ideal, but better than any alternative (mainly because nobody seems to have come up with a workable alternative).

Or could it be that this is the latest dog whistle?......I wonder.

Johnson just makes me a bit sweary, sometimes.

Yes, and the people most annoyed by it (the DUP) are the ones who campaigned for brexit.

Read the letter, it explains.

If only you'd asked this question before writing "Your and others' attempt to turn everything into a class war is one of the main reasons why we are in this awful mess."

did you see "The Day Mountbatten Died" last night?  It's a timely reminder of the utter carnage in Ireland 40 years less 7 days ago.  An anniversary it's worth remembering and considering, tandem.   There are signs at the moment. I suggest that anyone who has forgotten or is unfamiliar with what happened in the 70s watches it.

This refusal to see reason by the gang in charge might have severe consequences and it's no good Yeltson saying it wasn't his doing afterwards.

More time in the Telegraph needed, Ireland already is to blame! Apparently.

jk

If you have shares in foreign companies, through an investment plan probably and the value of the pound drops then without shares changing their value in dollars, Euros or whatever, their value in pounds will rise. UK companies who do most of their business abroad in foreign currencies also do nicely when they bring their profits home and turn them into sterling.

If you've paid off your house and property prices crash then so what? Unless you were hoping to sell your house and buy a smaller one to fund your retirement then it'll mean very little. In fact if you've invested abroad and the pound crashes you might just take advantage if that windfall to buy a nicer house when the price is low.

Of course if you're poor then much of the above is unlikely to apply and you're probably stuffed.

It's whiney letter from a man who is used to having his cake and eating it.

1. Ireland and the EU do not want a hard border. The UK and the DUP purportedly do not want a hard border.

2. At the same time, the EU does not want an open border to their single market from dereg-spiv UK. That position should be respected and normally is in international negotiations.

Boris's whinge letter addresses neither of those points.

The Telegraph shouldn't be considered a national paper of record any more. It's just a propaganda sheet with some news items attached now. Another recent example - 

https://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/propaganda-the-telegraphs-comres-...

Why can Norway have an open border but not NI? 

Norway is part of the European Economic Area, a solution we could have gone for but the idiots ruled it out.  And its border with Sweden has its own problems:

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-ireland-border-customs-norway-sweden...

But it's only certain trade agreements. Food and drink aren't included for example. So it's not quite so straight forward as it appears. But it's still open. These are problems that are solvable, it's not an all or nothing hard or soft border, there could be grey areas between. That of course doesn't suit the political stances of many parties. 

Edit. The smuggling problem you cite is because of the tax differences on alcohol between mainland Europe and the nordics. The UK and Ireland don't have those tax differences so the incentives are not there. Plus smuggling isn't that rife at all. 

They are in the single market. That alleviates most of the concerns, but it's still not open. 8 minute wait.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41412561

Are you new to this topic? 

I have done; it explains why the uk government find the backstop, as proposed, unacceptable. It doesn't explain how it is undemocratic. 

Cummings claims (dont believe for a second that Johnson is anything other than a mouthpiece) the backstop is "potentially indefinite", but also that an alternative arrangement is possible. The backstop already acknowledges that it will be in force only until such an alternative arrangement can be found anyway, so whats the problem?.......

He also says it prevents NI from influencing the legislation applying to them. NI voted to remain in the EU. Only the DUP oppose this. Oh, look who is propping up the UK government.........who'd have thought.

The rest is wishy washy wish lists, without anything concrete proposed. Long on rhetoric, short on substance.

Just quit with the irrelevant waffle. Anything approaching the Norway has been flatly ruled out by our Brexiteers.

Not for vehicles which don't have goods. You can drive straight through. 

Hardly. 

Maybe read it again?  “The treaty provides no sovereign means of exiting unilaterally and affords the people of Northern Ireland no influence over the legislation which applies to them. That is why the backstop is anti-democratic.”

No, you tried to use smuggling of alcohol caused by massive sales tax differences to justify your border argument. It might be irrelevant because your argument was flawed? 

WTF are you talking about?

BS as usual.

Smuggling isn't that rife also because both sides of the border are in the EU, and given its a free trade area with free movement of goods / people etc somewhat restricts the opportunities for smuggling......

Norway isn't in the eu. It's in efta, which gives it membership of the eea along with the other eu members. 

Not all goods are in the Norwegian trade agreement. Food and drink aren't for example. 

So if I'm wrong, please explain why it's financially viable to risk smuggling alcohol into Norway? 

Fully aware of that. I'm talking about the Irish border. Check the part of your post that i replied to.........

I

HAVE

 NOT

MENTIONED

 ALCOHOL

One again, you are waffling, and completely ignoring the salient point that our Brexiteers have flatly refused a Norway model.

So what makes Norway/eu different to uk/eu? These are solvable problems. 

The people of NI voted clearly in favour of staying in the EU. Are you suggesting they should be allowed to change their minds?

No need. How does that explain how it is anti democratic? The people of NI currently have no democratic means of influencing legislation :-

1. They would like to remain in the EU, as per the referendum. This is being denied to them by the ERG. (We used to call it the Tory party, but times change....).

2. Stormont is currently not operating. They are under direct rule from Westminster (admittedly not westminsters choice, but its still a fact). 

Just because Dominic / Boris says it is undemocratic doesn't mean it is automatically undemocratic.

It was you who said there were problems.

But that's a different argument. Let's stick your argument at 1338 where you said there were problems, which i think wouldn't actually be a problem on the Ireland/ UK border. 

Besides, no brexiteer voters have actually been asked about it. Just MPs. 

Apologies. It was bob Kemp who linked that BBC article not you. I should have scrolled up and down more. 

I'm pretty sure Mike Stretford has tried this already, but here goes.

Norway is a member of EFTA. This provides for a certain level of integration with the EU. The UK is currenlty a full member of the EU, albeit with opt outs to certain areas (currency, schengen etc). The UK government wishes to leave the EU entirely and not become a member of EFTA. So we are in the UK currently in a different position to Norway wrt the EU, and after leaving will be in an, er, alternative different position to Norway wrt the EU..........

Yup. THe backstop helps achieve brexit in the short term; something else is required long term. Just nobody has come up with one yet. The EU because they have already agreed to the backstop in good faith (as have the UK government), and the ERG (Tory Party of old, see other posts) haven't because they can't.

I pointed out that Norway is in the single market, one again WTF are you on about?

You are waffling and shifting about, and you don't seem to able able to keep track of who said what. So let's not stick to anything you suggest thanks.

There are a few Bexiteer MPs you know. The PM is one of them. He will not entertain anything near a Norway model, so your argument is irrelevant.

Yes, they do.  They elect MPs.

They want to remain in the UK more, and given that the DUP are necessary in terms of numbers, and are the majority of NI MPs you can’t blame anyone else.

Westminster, where their MPs (that can be bothered to turn up) sit.

No, the fact that laws will be passed that control them and that they cannot influence does - as he said.

The people of the U.K. voted to leave.  NI is part of the U.K.

Norway has a complex trade agreement and it works, Switzerland same again etc..

The only thing stopping a bespoke NI / Ireland border are the politicians who have entrenched views for varying reasons. 

Every time this is debated on tv, r2, r4 you'll have a customs person saying of course it's possible there are numerous examples around the world etc..

The problem is the politicians of eu, ireland, NI and London, who are using the people and the border as pawns in bigger and or other political arguments. Norway obtained independence from sweden just over a hundred years, their politics are or were potentially just as complex, but the mentality is world aparts. All sides of the NI border should be looking for a common ground solution, rather than using it to fan the flames of their given political stance.

. 

It's not rife at the moment but has been and will be again if we don't avoid a new border:

https://theconversation.com/smuggling-in-the-irish-borderlands-and-why-it-c...

The letter says, quoted above by you: “The treaty provides no sovereign means of exiting unilaterally and affords the people of Northern Ireland no influence over the legislation which applies to them. That is why the backstop is anti-democratic.”

You don't get to pretend one second that you give a shit about NI and then not when it suits your argument. Have you considered running for PM?

Norway automatically incorporates EU law decided in Brussels in their national law in order to prevent problems at the border. The UK is not prepared to do this. This is the fundamental difference between the two countries. The one course of action leads to a reasonably frictionless border (with the exception of customs issues), the other leads to a border checks on almost everything.

The problem can be resolved by the UK:

a) staying in the EU

b) accepting EU regulations as national law with a very limited say about those regulations

c) same as b) but only for NI, but with checks in the Irish sea

Now that is not in dispute, and is nothing to do with brexit. Until 1997 they were for the most part actively looking for problems.

You know that NI can choose to leave the U.K., right?

'The  people', that phrase beloved of authoritarians and fascists. As I presume you are neither, then I guess you mean 'some of the people of the UK voted to leave'.

Only for what is relevant to their trade agreement. For example, Food and drink aren't included, so Norway doesn't incorporate anything cap related etc. 

Can they? Has Johnson offered them a border poll?

Norway is not in CAP, but it accepts EU food safety standards.

Anyway, even the Norway scheme would not be good enough for Ireland, because a large part of the crossborder industry is agriculture. And that has to be checked at the NO-SW border.

Norway and the UK are also different that in Norway fishing and agriculture (mainly fishing) is a significant part of wealth creation. So there is some sense in paying a price to be out of the EU fisheries scheme.

In the UK the main industry is financial services. Here Norway accepts EU regulation. The UK accepting EU decided financial regulation makes less sense.

The dumbest quibble ever.  Just as the people of South Bristol voted labour, the people of the U.K. voted leave.  Obviously not all, obviously some didn’t bother to vote, obviously some can’t cause they’re kids, etc.

Edit - did you note I copied the wording from the guy I replied to?  Funny “how the people of NI” didn’t merit your quibble...

It's about the ability to have savings in case of unemployment to tide one over in paying rent or a mortgage, and being able to afford food and other essentials. It's true that other richer people will be badly affected, too, but to say that the poor are fucked in case of a no deal Brexit, isn't turning it into a class war, because It's not just lefties and socialists who are saying this, John Mayor has done too, said that the poorest in society will be most badly affected (rather than the only ones badly affected). It's simply an inevitable economic reality.

You're right, though, that other people will be fucked too, but it's the poorest who are more likely to go hungry or be made homeless, we live in stark times. No Deal will likely just increase the numbers of poor. 

You have a very simplistic idea of democracy. While it is true that overall, by a slim majority, the UK voted to leave, Northern Ireland and Scotland didn't, by much larger margins. I don't know how many times I have to put this diagram up:

http://www.gordonstainforthbelper.co.uk/images/EURefHowWeVoted.html

If we continue to treat the regions with contempt, it could easily lead to the break up of the UK ... as you yourself, amazingly, have admitted:

I'm sure I would be far from alone in finding it very funny indeed, in a very ironic way, if the Tory Brexiters, managed to achieve in just four or five years what the IRA completely failed to achieve in a hundred. It would surely be the greatest irony in the whole of our history.

They dont even have to please the IRA - they could vote for independence from the UK without becoming part of the republic; this might be more appealing to them as it would protect them from the abortion / gay marriage laws that the Republic have. And for those who do not want to join the republic but want to remain in / rejoin the EU, it might be an attractive proposition.........

52% people of the people voted to leave the EU. Or to rephrase, very nearly half of the country voted not to leave the EU. 'The people' is the highest order of misleading, and if you can't understand that you need to find some reinforcements for your brain cells.

A massive over simplification of two countries economies? 

Perhaps Norway simply thought CAP is a farce and wanted nothing to do with it. It runs it's own internal scheme. 

Actually that was the percentage of people who voted.    Very rationally a lot of people decided they didn't know how to vote (though from a control systems point of view that might justify voting for the status quo to prevent unknown consequences) while many others (I know of a couple of cases round here) dithered not knowing but in the end voted remain because of stuff they heard via social media!  This was before we'd even heard of Dominik's Infokrieg AI systems.

The reason that no second refereundum should be allowed by the Brexiteers is they know full well that the people who did not vote know a lt more about the shit that is being perpetrated on the country now and the shit to come that their one-off cheated vote will be overturned by the better informed and greater Will of the People now and they won't get another chance.

Nothing to do with democracy, just denial of it in fact.

Brexiteers think a Mandate of X-Y = a Mandate of X+Y where X and Y are the votes cast by the two sides.  Thus a majority of one person is a Mandate of the Entire People!

Only for the foods it wishes to export.

And in norway tourists, locals, workers travel back and forth unhindered at any point along 1000+km of border. The freight goes via key points for checks. 

The food still reaches the shelves, folk on either side aren't starving. 

Neither side is using it as a justification for terrorism or unrest. 

Fancy addressing that to Monkey Puzzle?  It’s such a stupid argument.  Everyone knows what the phrase means, no one is being misled.

Apart from the swing (shown in endless polls) back towards Remain, there is the vote of the young ... the huge number of young people who've come into the electorate since the last vote ... who will be most affected by any kind of Brexit. If there is anything that makes me really angry about the Brexit project is its total and utter contempt for the next generation. It is just so utterly selfish, much of it driven by comfortably-off old farts who go on about immigration but, because they live in the expensive shires and retiree enclaves of the south-east, have scarcely seen an immigrant in their lives. Or, if they have ... people like fruit pickers. Note: one of the first casualties of a hard Brexit will be the range, availability and value for money of English strawberries and raspberries ... and all European fruit for that matter.

Oh god, I won't go on. It's all so bleeding obvious. ... Must get back to work.

My apologies, I lost track of who was arguing what.

Not dumb at all. I'm just not keen on imprecise use of language generally, and in the political context in particular. And I'm not here to pick up on every such imprecise use - it would take too long.  

So what regulations are you willing to accept for the UK?

Norway's internal standards for every product are an exact copy of the EU's, so also food. They are free to support their farmers in whatever way they want, they are free to put custom tax on any imported food, but their agreement with the EU stipulates exactly how the food control inspections in the country work.

I'd be quite content with a Norway style, open borders, free trade agrrement etc. I've nothing against movement of goods or people. But rapid ever closer everything is recipe for disaster imho. It's likely to be severely stress tested in the near future. 

At least the UK will have ended CAP, fisheries, funding Strasbourg, ecb, euro etc. Etc. 

Minimum standards. They are free to have different stricter controls than the eu regs. Denmark pig rearing is an anomaly but generally the nordics have stricter welfare regs and harsher inspection schemes than the eu benchmark standard. 

An aside: Declassified FBI files reveal that Lord Mountbatten “was a homosexual with a lust for young boys”. The FBI dossier was compiled by American agents during WWII and the Suez Crisis. The Americans began compiling the Mountbatten file in February 1944, shortly after Mountbatten became Supreme Allied Commander of Southeast Asia. They kept adding to it over the next three decades.

The FBI interviewed Elizabeth de la Poer Beresford, Baroness Decies, who knew about Mountbatten’s predilections. According to the FBI file: “She states that in these circles Lord Louis Mountbatten and his wife are considered persons of extremely low morals”.  Also that he “was known to be a homosexual with a perversion for young boys”. Her opinion of him was that he was “an unfit man to direct any sort of military operations because of this condition”. She stated further that “his wife Lady Mountbatten was considered equally erratic”.

crikey, i didn't know that.    But the film is a reminder in particular about Warrenpoint on the other side of the country and as such a warning from history not to be ignored

Have you got anything on Boris or JRM?

Weird. It's almost as if Norway/Sweden lack established and active terrorists looking to exploit Brexit.

Such a good point!

I think a Norway style solution is now the best (at least for the next decade), but some massive shifts in British politics are required in order to get there.

I also think the EU is and will be severy stress tested now and in the future, but it will emerge stronger for this. Even if it is a disaster, I don't think the UK being out of the EU will isolate the UK from the disaster.

Fair point, if you are willing to give up a seat in the European Council for this.

Perhaps unlike Ireland and the parties of NI they've realised it's not 1919, 1819, 1719 and have moved on setting old medieval differences aside. You should add Finland and Denmark into the mix, whose borders and ownership have changed many times through history. But apart from the banter that anyone in southern tip of sweden is Danish they have as a rule moved on. Ireland's and NI women rights, abortion laws etc. are some additional indication that they don't know it's actually 2019 and are too heavily influence by religion, but also minor differences within the same religion causing divide to this day in many communities, schools etc. They can blame Brexit, but if the next generation is growing up divided that is the cause of future unrest. Even without Brexit NI can't form a government and terrorists are trying to bomb the police service. 

Great. You're right. You've convinced me.

Now pop over to NI and convince everybody including the terrorists. Perhaps you could convince them that they are really Swedish with a completely different history as I expect they are already familiar with Ikea and Abba.

The differences are not 'medieval'; you really need to read some history. And anyway, the potential for trouble is very real, rational or no (and certainly not justified.)

But HMG is hardly in a position to discuss rationality, is it, because it is being held to ransom by a collected bunch of nutters - the DUP,  the ERG, and the Brexit party who between them cannot give a single sensible or verifiable reason for the long term pain that is about to be inflicted, not just on this country, but (to a lesser extent) throughout Europe as well. And we will be made to pay.

Few mindless UKC comments have ever made me feel more angry than this one. To reduce the Irish problem to the trite phrase 'medieval differences' is a complete outrage, by any standards (well, any historian's standards.). Apart from not understanding the full depth and antiquity of the problem (dating back to Henry II at the latest), and not even acknowledging in any way the barbaric 'holocaust' of Cromwell, you appear to have a complete ignorance of all the 20th-century Irish troubles after 1919. I'm not even going to get into a discussion with you about this. It's a bit like a 'musical expert' telling you that to appreciate and understand modern music you don't need to have listened to anything since the most primitive early medieval music that was still just using four-note 'modes' rather than keys. Forget the well-tempered clavier.

Also, you fail to see that young people now in Ireland precisely want to put past history aside and make sure that the border never returns. I suspect the vast majority now would be only too happy to have a united Ireland. Yet you support the completely outmoded side that wants to re-open all those past divisions and wounds (and please don't underestimate the wounds). You are a breathtaking hypocrite.

I think our only feasible option is: Leave the EU but stay in the single market and keep freedom of movement, if only temporarily. That way we technically appease democracy but can kick the can down the road regarding the Irish border and all that mess. Yes it makes no political sense, and we become rule takers, but that is better than economic sabotage, destabilisation of Ireland and union breakup. 

No other option

• Solves the Irish border issue
• Appeases enough the absolutely mad *WE WON* crowd (they will never be competely happy anyway)
• Preserves the relative health of our economy.

Obviously Brexiters won't compromise to this degree, and it would probably only be a Labour government that are politically positioned to pull that off, so would need to go down the No Confidence/Caretaker Government/GE/Renegotiation route. 

Otherwise, if no deal really goes ahead, is anyone here putting their savings into foreign capital? £ crashing into oblivion could be quite a tasty profit. 

I'm finding it really hard not to use expletives here. Have a word with yourself.

Edit: I see others have articulated my point way better than i could.

I'm aware of recent history too thanks. But at some point a line needs to be drawn and folk move on. A line was drawn, convicted terrorists released from prison etc and look at what's slowly growing on the streets there once again. That's not the fault of a Brexit voter. 

Reopen wounds? The terrorists who tried to kill police this week weren't doing so because of Brexit, Boris or anything else related to the eu. Nor the journalist who got shot and killed a month or two ago. Brexit will of course be blamed in the future, because it's convenient.  The Tories jumping into bed with the DUP didn't help either.

I voted for Brexit yes. There are umpteen differing solutions to the border, but it's politicians on both sides who have turned it into a political pawn, they fan the flames of their respective voters, they build hatred and divide, not unity. They aren't prepared to meet in the middle, give ground and so on, it's all or nothing. Look at the state of the power sharing government. To blame voters elsewhere is just feeble. 

I'm always intrigued by lines such as "at some point a line needs to be drawn and folk move on" because Britain is shockingly poor at this. The navel gazing extends to the point of #Brexiters (who NEVER experienced WW2) invoking the 'Dunkirk Spirit' or some such crass phrase to stitch the coming hardships and self inflicted suffering on to notions of national identity and British (English) moral fiber.

Johnson himself has perfected a faux-Chrchillian persona. It's all spaff.

When you talk of "what's slowly growing on the streets there once again" i think you miss the impact of Austerity on the current political zeitgeist. The political and economic messages synthesised through a largely complicit media, have a hand to play in the Brexit mess.

There has been plenty economic suffering elsewhere in the UK and Europe but they don't seem to be shooting journalists and blowing up their own police forces?

Jesus wept.

Exactly. You were blaming NI terrorism on recent austerity!?

Where the hell did you get to that from?????

Shani - dont try to answer that one, it'll do your blood pressure no good.

At 1839

The folks who are insistent on total 'regulatory alignment' with the remainder of the UK.

Except for womens' rights to abortion and gay marriage. 

I'm not sure you have an idea of democracy at all, except as a buzz word.  Northern Ireland didn't vote to leave or remain in the EU, the UK did.  Every vote counted towards the same thing and was worth exactly the same.  What's your view on NI being subject to legislation that is created by another country?  Not a democratic issue?

I'm not doing that.  Looks a lot like remainers are treating half the regions with contempt to me - particularly Wales that seems to be completely ignored, likely as they inconveniently voted to leave.  Scotland is not more important than Wales, or than the North East of England, or any other region.  The whole of the UK voted as a unit, we've never been a country where one region gets a veto over the rest.  Making us one, as you seem to want to do, is much more likely to lead to it breaking up given the obvious tensions it creates.

Enjoy.  I have no problem at all with NI voting to leave the UK, whether to join Eire or not, it's up to them.  Currently they don't want to, and it's not me who is/was trying to separate them from the rest of the UK against their wishes - that's Ireland, the EU, and T. May.

Fair enough, thanks.

When a phrase is repeatedly used to mean something, and everyone knows what it means, it's not imprecise, it's clear.

This conversation has come from you quoting a letter that specifically takes issue with the fact that NI, named specifically rather than the UK as a whole, cannot democratically affect the backstop. The fact that NI voted clearly to remain in the EU, the fact that all opinion polls on the subject point to the population of NI preferring to have a customs border in the Irish Sea rather than on the NI/Republic border and the fact that the UK government have every intention of applying a no-deal Brexit that would necessitate a hard border against NI's wishes all make that statement so disingenuous as to be insulting.

No one is offering them a border poll, so on what basis do you say they don't want to leave?

Do you disagree that the backstop creates a democratic problem for NI (and so the UK as a whole)?  That's what the quote was saying.  Is it not a problem in democratic terms if the laws that govern you are ones you have no say in?

The fact is that the DUP got the majority of seats in NI and they get to make decisions for their constituents until they get voted out.  They were elected post referendum.  They don't want to leave the UK and they are against the backstop.  The people of NI did not vote to remain in the EU even if that meant leaving the UK, that wasn't an option.  They did vote in the DUP.

Maybe the polls will predict the future result of a real vote, who knows, they're just polls and I don't take them as gospel.

Surely we can all agree that people selectively using their preferred, self-serving definition of "democracy" is precisely what created this whole, pathetic, embarrassing shit-show that leaves us the laughing stock of the whole of the industrialised world.

Perhaps it might have been better just to stick to the usual representative Parliamentary democracy that we all accept as the democratic system we live under, from the outset, and then none of this bullshit would ever have come to pass. 

problem is we have a very inadequate democracy. other countries have better ones.

Ironically,  the EU has a better democracy

Rather than introducing a separate system, in the form of the EU, you mean?  Yes, agreed.

Which was why Corbyn was discussing with May a Customs Union as a Bexit definition. Now that boat has sailed as someone else said , only hard line Cons in power with no solution. It has to be obvious that in a referendum most people would seek remaining in EU and reform from within on issues like freedom of movement of people { and we are seeing the inadequacies of a sudden end to freedom of movement of people as proposed by Priti Patel as deeply unworkable because it is systematically erratic}. I do think Corbyn left well alone in power after Boris would aim for a customs union brexit but that would not command any support from those who quite categorically voted for a WTO Brexit at the EU elections. If he gets into power with no constraints then the whole situation is another protracted nonsense. He is going for a referendum paper with three options but in my humble opinion there is only WTO rules and Remain available as options.

The backstop only exists because of a Brexit vote which went against the wishes of NI. Would you support a NI only referendum on the backstop?

You're doing that thing of conflating a multi-issue GE with a single issue referendum. It doesn't work. If you want to infer something about NI's wishes regarding Brexit, I find it strange that you're ignoring the single-issue vote in favour of the multi-issue GE.

People only say that when they don't like what the polls say.

And it's clear that you are using the phrase in this context to over-claim the validity of the Brexit vote, and that's a misuse of the phrase.

No, as said we are the U.K. and should operate as such.  I’d be fine with a referendum on leaving, otherwise all regions need to accept national decisions.

I’m not ignoring it, it was a UK wide vote which leave won.  It was not a vote on whether to leave or remain in the U.K., so nothing can be inferred from it in that respect.

Speak for yourself.  I always say it, including when polls agree with me.

That's only feasible if you can first get past the looming crisis without a different 'solution' emerging then persuade parliament to vote for it which seems very unlikely. Alternatively get past this crisis then elect a parliament which will vote for it, again unlikely as any future parliament will almost certainly be even more polarised on the brexit issue meaning an exit, if it happens, will be a hard one. Quite possibly the next parliament will be as paralysed as this one anyway.

To govern Labour will have committed to putting any brexit settlement back to the public, either in their manifesto or in a coalition agreement, the public, like MPs, won't vote for 'Norway'.

jk

If Wales is being ignored as inconvenient it's by leavers. Polls now showing solid remain majorities in all the home nations, Wales included https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/remain-10-percentage-point-le...

jk

I meant feasible in terms of for the country. If you're looking for a parliamentary solution, then it's almost impossible. 

FPTP delivered a slim majority of NI Westminster seats to the DUP, likewise a slightly better system delivered them an equally slim majority in Stormont, both in 2017. The majority of NI voters did not vote for the DUP or pro-bexit/border parties in either election, not by a long shot.

As usual you see what you want to see.

jk

it's a shame Sinn Feinn won't do anything about the Westminster Applecart

If ever there was a moment ...

It's just not in their interest, brexit is the clearest shot at reunification they've ever had and generations sooner than expected.

jk

An argument about what "should" happen in your opinion is utterly useless, as is your opinion on who "needs to accept" what. The facts of the world are stark: Brexit -if it happens - means breaking up the UK, because nobody bothered to think it through. They were too stupid and too lazy.

The Backstop is "undemocratic" because it ties the UK (or at least Northern Ireland) to membership of the EU Customs Union and close alignment to the EU Single Market without allowing the UK any say in how the Customs Union and Single Market are governed. So we're throwing away our right to a say and then complain that we haven't got it.

Martin

Then the government and you should write "UK" not "Northern Ireland" when pretending to give a shit about democracy.

What? Where did I suggest that it did? You're the one who wrote "they can always leave the UK if they want" or words to that effect. I'm pointing out the inconsistency of you saying that NI voting for the DUP means NI doesn't want the backstop, but also saying that a majority in NI voting to Remain can be ignored because it's a UK-wide vote. I know you've been enjoying the taste of cakeism for a few years now but that doesn't stop it being bollocks.

Uh huh.

Ah, yes. Its obvious now you you put it like that. How undemocratic it is, and how silly of us all to think anything else. I also forget, as no doubt did many others, that the citizens of Northern Ireland cant have any arrangement that is any different to any other part of the UK, even though allowing that would make life so much easier for us all by allowing the WA to be approved in parliament. Obviously except womens rights and same sex marriage.

All we need is one of those ever-so-simple Alternative Arrangements. David Davies has been quiet of late; surely he must be about to unveil one?

In context the correct thing to write is NI.  It’s they who would be subject to law that they have no say over.  The people pretending to care are those, like you, who ignore the results of votes when they don’t approve of the outcome.  

There is no inconsistency, just saying there is doesn’t create one.  Cakeism the concept is certainly a load of bollocks, yet another meaningless buzzword.

There is a proposal on the table, but I assume it's just a premature April Fools joke:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/boris-johnson-wants-ireland-to-leave-...

I was asked for my opinion, and gave it.  If you’re not interested just ignore it.  Your future predictions are not facts no matter how many times you people insist that they are.  OTOH it is simply a fact that in our country no region gets a veto, that’s not an opinion.

Magical!

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

On reflection, I directed my comment above at exactly the right person the first time round. How the 'ck do you come to the conclusion that a majority of 2% is in any way shape or form an excuse to sow economic and social devestation on an entire nation?

Maths - ignoring all your hyperbolic bs.

If we're happy with accepting simple majorities for actioning life-changing decisions, why don't we apply that to the justice system too and convict people on the balance of probability?

'Seven of us think you did it, five of us thnk you're innocent - and thus you are found guilty of [murder/rape/drug trafficking]'.

They have had a say over it, and they've said they want to not only be in the customs union, but in the EU completely, as they are now. I wish I could ignore Brexit, but you know what it's started to bother me just a little. I like democracy so much I think we should have another vote.

I'd explained *why* it was inconsistent. This is where you explain why you think it is not.

Carrying on the analogy with a court of law - if an accused was convicted of a crime, but the evidence for the conviction was later found to be incorrect, or based on perjury, then the conviction would be overturned.

So if a 'democratic' decision was reached on the basis that a) we couldn't stop Turkey joining the EU, b) we would be £350 million a week better off, c) We wouldn't need to pay a settlement figure, d) we could do trade deals easily, e) there wouldn't be any job losses etc etc, all of which have subsequently been shown to be untrue,  then I would say that was at the very least grounds for running the referendum again, wouldn't you?

There has been no vote where they’ve had a say on the backstop.  There has been no vote on the rules created under it - they haven’t been created yet, and it looks like they never will be.  If you like democracy so much do you have any comment on the democratic problem with the backstop?

My post yesterday explains.  U.K. wide votes are U.K. wide.  MPs are elected by constituency.

Am I having an acid flashback?

You're right that they don't get a veto, which is not what I suggested; but they can leave the union, by forcing a referendum - which is what I said.

There is no democratic problem with the backstop. Do you people accept every piece of bullshit leading Brexiteers trope out?

The funny thing is (in a sad way), is if we really are trapped in the backstop.... then it is most definitely required!

If we required that kind of certainty for democratic decisions nothing would ever be decided.  Criminal law is not a sensible comparison.

Historically less than a majority has been required for life changing decisions - like all the endless extensions of EU law.

So to you law governing a country that the citizens of that country have no say over isn’t a democratic problem?  Okay then...

Wow. that is creative.

In what universe does he think the people of the Irish republic want to have anything to do with that idea? In some ways its similar to the Trump to buy Greenland thing, which i took as a spoof until he tweeted that he is cancelling his visit to Denmark because the Danes dont want to discuss it.

We do have a say. We've had one and could have another. Plenty of options. We just don't have the cake and eat it option you Brexiteers want.

Look, international negotiations between democracies always involve respecting each governments democratic mandate while not pandering to either. The backstop is a perfect example of that. Why should Ireland have an unpoliced border between their chosen customs union and single market, and whatever the UK becomes, with all the associated problems? The Irish population haven't decided they want that, does their democracy not count?

Truth is you lot are so shitfaced on your own nationalism you cannot see it from anyone else's point of view.

The reality is that the thickies have taken over. I don't know what they're going to do in the States, but here, we somehow need to Take Back Control.

This "democratic problem" with the backstop is bullshit. Our government chose to leave the CU and SM, creating the necessity for the backstop to ensure no border controls in Ireland between leaving the EU and securing any future trade deal, thereby honouring the Good Friday Agreement. Under these conditions the backstop must be continuous to a) respect the integrity of the EU, b) respect the decision to leave the EU with a view to a future new FTA, and c) maintain the conditions of the GFA. If the backstop is removed, a) and c) go out the window due to necessary border controls. If we're given the option of unilaterally leaving the backstop, we are handed massive leverage in any negotiations, with the threat of an EU land border open to smuggling of people/goods and the return of the Troubles as the lever. The backstop is literally the only tool that can achieve a), b) and c) above.

It is either for the EU to decide it's fine with an open land border; the UK government to decide it's fine with NI or the UK as a whole to stay in the SM and CU, for the UK government decide it's happy with the consequences of border controls between NI and the Republic, or for the implementation of the backstop.

If none of the above are acceptable, then the democratic solution is to either hold a new referendum or a GE, either of which would be campaigned on championing a specific alternative to the the current withdrawal agreement.

And advisory votes are advisory.

Very well explained, but there are perfectly good reasons Brexiteers won't accept the backstop. At least when you're in the EU you can trigger A50 and get out! I accept that the backstop (either the NI or whole UK version) is probably the most sensible fudge possible (which is precisely why it's in the WA), but the fact that leaving the EU actually restricts our ability to, err, leave the EU isn't something that can be glossed over.

The fact that the backstop is both required and unacceptable is just a consequence of the unworkability of Brexit as a policy. By holding (or rather losing) the referendum, the government essentially announced a policy before any kind of feasibility assessment had been done. It was insane.

The word democracy is being squeezed pretty hard lately to mean all things to all people. In the UK the flavour of democracy we have is parliamentary democracy, whereas many people seem to be under the illusion that we have direct democracy. We don't.

However, Parliament took note of the referendum result and decided - by the process of parliamentary democracy - to trigger A50. This was done largely because the outcome of the referendum suggested it was marginally preferred by voters and there wasn't a compelling reason to do otherwise, with Parliament well aware that options for exiting at the time still included relatively benign soft-Brexit outcomes that would have honoured the referendum result while still being not insane.

Some time later, Parliament was presented with a particular flavour of Brexit to approve and it repeatedly failed to do so. You could call this an affront to the people but you can't call it undemocratic because, by definition, Parliament is the democratic decision-making body of the country. It's an enduring irony that the only reason May's deal failed in the end was because of opposition from the ERG, who opposed the agreed Brexit by means of our democratic Parliamentary process and then tried to claim that not Brexiting would be undemocratic!

So we're now left with a Parliament we've elected to look after our interests, who largely are convinced that leaving without a deal will be very far from in our interests, so who are doing what they were elected for and opposing the looming catastrophe by whatever democratic means are available to them within the Parliamentary system we have in place.

And then we have Johnson, Cummings et al., threatening to prorogue Parliament in order to force an outcome that is unacceptable to the elected members of Parliament who are doing precisely what we democratically elected them to do in representing our interests.

Remind me again who it is that's being undemocratic?

Good point, but that solution means basically leaving NI in the EU against their will, while dragging Scotland out against theirs. Doesn't sound like a recipe for a politically stable Union to me...

Another good point, but slight correction needed, NI voted to remain.... the DUP don't represent NI. Yes, Scotland would probably leave after that. I'd love Boris to go down as the last PM of the UK, then in his old age Farage sees the England and Wales re-enter the EU with a commitment to join the Euro. I'd laugh my cock off

Oh yes. It's quite complicated, this "democracy" thing, isn't it?

My heart fell through the floor when it became clear that BJ was going to achieve his dream of being PM. But I'm starting to think that it's actually worth it to watch his complete humiliation in front of basically the whole world. I can't see that any other outcome is possible, and yet, the seemingly impossible seems to have a habit of occurring these days...

No it can't. If only people had realised in advance that our one land border with the EU, on an island riven by a hundreds of years-old seemingly irresolvable dispute was going to be a bit of a sticking point. Who knew?

Agreed. They still could have made it work more easily by staying in the Customs Union, but, nah, let's make it impossible by definition.

Simple!  X - Y = X + Y

For any value of X and Y

always returns the strongest possible mandate

Only the poor? 

to think I used to think of Russia having clowns like Yeltsin in charge

I'm getting very confused.  Could someone create a Wikipedia page on thomasdixon so I can understand better?

Fraudulent misrepresentation certainly renders things uncertain, possibly void.  And has everything to so with criminal law. Even if it is perpetrated through bots by infotroops

Be careful what you wish for! There are a lot of people in the US still waiting ...

Bullshit, very insightful.

There is no requirement in the GFA for no customs controls at the border.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-46988529

Funny that you see the U.K. having leverage as a bad thing - as Jon points out below right now we have that leverage.

I'm annoyed we're taking of 'leverage'. This is a divorce, if it has to happen then it should  be as non-adversarial as possible. Our children will still suffer though.

Democracy is a word that has a pretty clear meaning (https://www.oed.com/oed2/00060572), and one of the absolute basics in any democracy is that the people get to make the rules, saying so isn't squeezing anything.  What people think is that in our system referendum results, rare as they are, are followed.  That's historically accurate, and does not amount to direct democracy, no one thinks it does.

Wasn't a compelling reason to do otherwise?  Parliament felt that it had no choice given the result but to follow it.  Much of Parliament still does.  Parliament was well aware that if no deal could be agreed then the other possibility was leaving without one.

Who's calling not voting for May's deal undemocratic?  May's deal failed because the majority of Parliament, a small subset of which is the ERG, wouldn't back it.  Unsurprisingly, people like the ERG think that May's deal isn't necessary to leave the EU, because it's not.  We voted to leave, not to leave with May's deal.

I'd say many were and are always convinced and that nothing in the last 3 years affected that.  They've acted for the last three years to try and prevent us from leaving, it's not something new.  People like Soubry are going directly against what they were elected for, against what they promised to do.

If Johnson's government is unacceptable to Parliament then they can (very well might) get rid of that government.  While they're in place (and Parliament could have got rid of them earlier) they have the powers that our system gives them, and they are doing what they were elected to do.

I'm not sure I've ever said a person is being undemocratic.  There are people who are acting against their promises, just like Clegg did.  That's always a possibility, crap as it is.  We get to vote them out in time, we can make different choices in the future, that is part of what makes us a democracy.  There are systems that are undemocratic, because they either just give no power to the people to make decisions  or practically cannot be/are not controlled by the people.

We're not married, we're not even people, we're countries.  Unfortunately people seem to want to make this adversarial.  Certainly a shame.

The people of Ireland, North and South, voted in a referendum to have the Good Friday Agreement, it was ratified by both governments. (Only the DUP opposed it...) 

(The people of Northern Ireland also voted to stay in the EU.) 

They knew what they were voting for and got it : 20 years of peace and an improving environment for prosperity. 

What is democratic about the people of England riding over the original decision of the Irish people ? Especially as the Leave vote was advisory under law. The UK government doesn't have to do this. Morally, it absolutely shouldn't be doing it. 

No one is suggesting withdrawing from the GFA.

The U.K. government was voted in on a promise to leave the EU and after a referendum in which the U.K. (not England) voted to leave the EU. We voted for it, that’s what’s democratic about it.

Brexit is intrinsically adversarial. It is one of the reasons why the EU27 finds it easy to stay united behind Barnier.

I suggest you re-examine your simplist views on the Irish Border.  The concerns of many on this thread who remember well and lived through the times we speak of (a university friend at Durham lost some of his soldiers and their families on the M62 in an IRA coach bombing) are reflected in detail by Simon Byrne, Chief Constable of the PSNI on an interview on R4 Today before 8 this morning.  He puts the potential problems far more effectively and with intimate knowledge, as well as the implications for the security situation which many of us have anticipated and reiterated to you and others ad nauseam!

Or do you know better than he? And if so could you please present your credentials and qualifications for your pronouncements?

children will suffer.  If Ireland is screwed up then the kids there have a worse future to look forward to, and if UK of GB &NI continues there will be a need for youngsters to join the army and be blown to bits like the 18 paras at Warrenpoint

I'm not going to give you a like for that for obvious reasons but I think that's very possible.

The reason brexit hasn't happened, and we have a pm who's just talking absolute bollocks and getting nowhere near to finding a solution, is that membership of the eu on both sides of the border is what makes the gfa work. It's politically and practically unacceptable to wreck the gfa, and it's politically and practically unacceptable to cancel brexit. 

Do you think we might be in a bit of a pickle here? 

Well yes, brexit is "democratic" . As you say, we voted for it. But only just - which does undermine the argument somewhat, if the vote wasn't fair and given the chance we'd vote differently. And it being "democratic" unfortunately doesn't make it any more possible. We could vote for any ludicrous, unworkable policy offered disingenuously by some reckless, spineless charlatan and that would make it "democratic". But it doesn't mean that it can be implemented, if it's ludicrous and unworkable. 

no, agreed, it shows the problems with "Like"/"Dislike" labels.

It might be one form of democracy, but not a useful one.  We're not very good at referendums and it's very hard to boil down a complex issue to a simple, understandable, unambiguous, actionable, binary question.

In any case, there's a sensible presumption that major constitutional changes should not be made on the basis of a marginal vote.  Where countries have a written constitution there are often built-in safeguards to preserve the status quo unless there is evidence of a clear and settled will to change it by a clear majority- not 50%+1.  

If Cameron felt he had to hold a referendum it should have been made clear from the outset that leaving the EU was a massive constitutional change and only a majority of, say, 60% or 2/3 of those voting, or perhaps 51% of the total electorate would be considered a serious indication of the will of the people.  Even then it should been explained that leaving could mean anything from no deal/ WTO (with an explanation of what that would mean) to withdrawing from the political union whilst remaining in the single market, customs union and all other trade, scientific, educational and cultural institutions - and that the government of the day would need to work through those options by the normal political processes.

Of course, none of this was done, and the most damaging political decision of the last 50 years was made almost casually apparently without anyone (with the possible exception of George Osborne)  thinking through the consequences or even considering the possibility of dishonourable and dishonest campaign producing a narrow majority to leave.  

Anyway, I still think that an opposition political party with the integrity to stand on a clear manifesto explaining all this and with an unambiguous message that, now that all the ramifications are clearer, they are not prepared to leave the EU but would rather work within its structure and, using the political voice and influence we have, to actively and energetically engage with the EU to reform it.

Unfortunately, for as long as Jeremy Corbyn leads the Labour party, I don't see that happening.    

We need to repeat for the umpteenth time:

1. We were told clearly the referendum was advisory. That was the basis on which it was set up/ passed by parliament. Only later did the govt. sneakily change its status.

2. Almost no other country in the western world would make such a major change to their constitution on a simple 50% + vote. Most would require a supermajority of at least 60, 65 or 66%. The majority in our referendum was a slim 3.8%.

3. Most importantly, the referendum three years ago may not reflect what the electorate wants or doesn't want now. (Opinion polls for at least a year have shown that a substantial majority now want to stay.) It also completely neglects the wishes of all the young people who are now on the electorate and will be most affected by it.

The UK  has a flawed '1st Past The Post' voting system. The current bunch of w&nkers doesn't even  represent 30% of the electorate and you say their decision to leave the E.U   under any circumstances is democratic ? You my friend, are a deluded imbecile. As Gordon Stainforth clearly stated, the referendum was advisory, there is no reason to blindly follow such a small majority decision. The new Prime Minister ( appointed  and  NOT  elected) should take his Brexit at any cost to the country.

You couldn't put any clearer than that. What speaks volumes is I've yet to meet a Brexiteer who can accept the simple truth of the problem.

It's an idea that was doing the rounds on the crazier fringes of brexitry a couple of years back. That it's now coming from No.10 shows how far we've descended into this mire. We voted for brexit as a purported means to an end, as the impossibility of that became apparent it's morphed to become the end in and of itself, any means now shamelessly justified and mindlessly lapped up by the faithful.

It's hard to understand where he's going with that, superficially it seems quite mad.

jk

I have a solution. Can't Trump offer to buy us and the ROI? Problem solved.

He already own large parts of Scotland (golf courses) so may be buying it up piece by piece, stealth tactics.

That it's not stipulated in writing doesn't mean it's not an obvious necessity on the ground!

A customs border spoils the carefully constructed illusion, two countries that function as one, distinct enough to satisfy unionists, connected enough to satisfy republicans. Disturb that delicate equilibrium without the clear consent of the communities concerned and you create a dangerous flashpoint, doubly so when it once again becomes necessary to protect your border force with the military.

jk

Again, no 'like' for your post but spot on analysis.

Absolutely.  And we've managed to put the future of all that in the hands of the one group who weren't in favour of it in the first place - the DUP. 

The refusal, until the last few weeks, of the Brexiteers in parliament to even acknowledge any kind of substantive problem with the Irish border shows just how blinkered and self-interested many of them are.

Interesting Irish perspective and analysis here

youtube.com/watch?v=JvDAW5SjdaE& if you have an hour for a rather good analysis

I don't see having leverage as a bad thing. The point is the EU are not going to hand us a big red button attached to a really destructive bomb.

You don't get that the Brexit vote cancels the GFA vote do you? Be honest with yourself, did you ever think, when you voted, about the Irish referendum and what they voted for? 

No. I thought not.